Developing non-response weights to account for attrition-related bias in a longitudinal pregnancy cohort.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveThe prospective cohort study design is ideal for examining diseases of public health importance. A main source of potential bias for longitudinal studies is attrition. In this study, we compare the performance of two models developed to predict sources of attrition and develop weights to adjust for potential bias. ApproachThis study used the All Our Families longitudinal pregnancy cohort of 3351 maternal-infant pairs. Logistic regression models were developed to predict study continuation versus drop-out from baseline to the three-year data collection wave. Two methods of variable selection took place. One method used previous knowledge and content expertise while the second used Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO). Model performance for both methods were compared using area under the receiver operator curve values (AUROC) and calibration plots. Stabilized inverse probability weights were generated using predicted probabilities. Weight performance was assessed using standardized differences with and without weights (unadjusted estimates). ResultsLASSO and investigator prediction models had good and fair discrimination with AUROC of 0.73 (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.71 – 0.75) and 0.69 ( 95% CI: 0.67 – 0.71), respectively. Calibration plots and non significant Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit Tests indicated that both the LASSO model (p = 0.10) and investigator model (p = 0.50) were well-calibrated. Unweighted results indicated large (>10%) standardized differences in 15 demographic data variables (range: 11% - 29%), when comparing those who continued in study with those that did not. Weights derived from the LASSO and investigator models reduced standardized differences relative to unadjusted estimates, with ranges of 0.1% - 5.3% and 0.3% - 12.7%, respectively. ConclusionThe data-driven approach produced robust weights that addressed non-response bias more than the knowledge-driven approach. The data driven approach, did, however still require content knowledge in how data were grouped, combined, or split. The weights can be applied to analyses across multiple waves of data collection to reduce bias.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".